Core Animation will be an amazing feature. You guys know what they did with the photos when they first showed off those "10 features"? That animation created with Core? Imagine that as a screen-saver and/or desktop. And there could be other graphical tweaks made with Core -- other possible desktops/screen-savers.
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
But like so many others have mentioned, that was only what Apple wanted MS to know. I feel that Steve is much like me, as in when he creates a massive project such as Mac OS X -- that he has plans for each and every release, and it seems to me that Leopard is getting closer to the top. And that GUI update (Illuminus, if I remember correctly) will be amazing -- if the rumors hold true. Imagine a black gloss instead of the white. Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade. :-D
Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade.
Friend, it sounds like you want Vista.
I think Leopard will utilize CoreAnimation for a new UI that goes well beyond a new theme involving a handful of graphic and color changes. (But not so beyond as to abandon WIMP.)
Core Animation will be an amazing feature. You guys know what they did with the photos when they first showed off those "10 features"? That animation created with Core? Imagine that as a screen-saver and/or desktop. And there could be other graphical tweaks made with Core -- other possible desktops/screen-savers.
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
But like so many others have mentioned, that was only what Apple wanted MS to know. I feel that Steve is much like me, as in when he creates a massive project such as Mac OS X -- that he has plans for each and every release, and it seems to me that Leopard is getting closer to the top. And that GUI update (Illuminus, if I remember correctly) will be amazing -- if the rumors hold true. Imagine a black gloss instead of the white. Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade. :-D
So I am sure Leopard will be worth the upgrade.
It will be smoking.
who cares about screensavers and gui? all you are doing is displaying something someone else made. it is not like you are being original or creative by displaying the work of a ui professional on your screen. imho the gui should be there to be minimal and let you get on with it. not to look flashy. I'm not saying I don't like a pretty ui, just saying I couldn't care a less what screensaver will come with leopard/
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
Yep. It's shocking how blatantly they breach the NDA in that document.
Yeah. Some of those remarks made me realize that Apple's paranoia w/r/t Vista copying Leopard's UI is far more justified than I first thought.
It's also fascinating how Allchin et al see Spotlight as ripping *them* off, just because they were foolish enough to publicly announce, far too early in its development, WinFS in '03... which of course never made it into Vista in its original and overambitious form.
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
But the same concept is the same: (and thats also why I said TM has been improved, but then again, so does Vista).
And about the comments of the GUI, I grew up on Windows, where I can change the color of my GUI to pratically any color. I still want that. But i would be find swithcing from the current theme to the new one. (if in fact they have a new one).
Anyway, Leopard will be worth getting no matter how it looks.
By the way, Mac_next, if you're interested in tinting OS X to the color of your choice (or changing it completely), I recommend Jason Harris's $20 labor of love ShapeShifter. (Though god knows what he'll have to do to update the thing to work with Leopard.)
Resolution Independence won't affect video, would it? I mean, if you watch a 640x480 video on a 17-inch 1680x1050 screen and then on a 17-inch 1920x1440 screen, the video will look smaller on the latter, wouldn't it? Assuming both machines are running on Leopard.
From what I have understood till now, text and interface elements of the operating system will look the same on both screens, isn't it so?
resolution independence won't affect video at all. video is at a fixed size when it is output. what resolution independence does is use interface elements that are not a set resolution so that they can be scaled infinitely (or at least a set of icons that are cover enough of a range to be sufficient). video is what it is. it stays the size it is when it's created. blowing it up is simply using that information over a larger space.
By the way, Mac_next, if you're interested in tinting OS X to the color of your choice (or changing it completely), I recommend Jason Harris's $20 labor of love ShapeShifter. (Though god knows what he'll have to do to update the thing to work with Leopard.)
That can screw with the wrong things and since I have all ready corrupted a profile using I refuse to do so. But it was an amazing app.
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
I'm more concerned about notebook users who are already extremely limited on drive space, when it comes to using Time Machine. It sounds like a great feature for desktops, but unless they figure out a way to stuff two drives into a MBP, I don't see how Time Machine will be functional without lugging around an external drive, unless notebook users are willing give up space on their already claustrophobic HD's.
I'm more concerned about notebook users who are already extremely limited on drive space, when it comes to using Time Machine. It sounds like a great feature for desktops, but unless they figure out a way to stuff two drives into a MBP, I don't see how Time Machine will be functional without lugging around an external drive, unless notebook users are willing give up space on their already claustrophobic HD's.
I would certainly hope that TM will allow you to plug in an external drive every so often (I recommend everyday) and it will update the image on the external drive. Otherwise as you say, MacBook users will not be as likely to take advantage of it.
resolution independence won't affect video at all. video is at a fixed size when it is output. what resolution independence does is use interface elements that are not a set resolution so that they can be scaled infinitely (or at least a set of icons that are cover enough of a range to be sufficient). video is what it is. it stays the size it is when it's created. blowing it up is simply using that information over a larger space.
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
No, you're wrong. Developers are asked to make their app not magnify bitmap images, whether still or moving, in any lossy way.
I honestly bought a Mac in part due to their upcoming release and I think I am not alone. The features in the next release will open up a whole new world of computing for Mac users i have a feeling. I give it 10 years and Apple will have a majority of new users switching to Mac. It's all now in the software developers hands. Let us all prey that they think about the future rather than immediate dollar signs....
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
that's what i said. you'll get the same information over a greater space = lower resolution.
No, you're wrong. Developers are asked to make their app not magnify bitmap images, whether still or moving, in any lossy way.
What that request means, is make bigger bitmaps so they don't have to be scaled up. (It's not lossy even if they are... the same information is there. It's just not as good quality as if they had the bigger images.)
Things will get made larger if the resolution independence kicks in. The only apps that can keep things the same are certain Carbon apps that Apple has decided don't work with resolution independence. Everyone else has to draw things larger if the OS says so. It's the developer's job to provide nice larger artwork, otherwise the computer just forcibly scales it.
Comments
Developers should sign it, but as a very important developer, so does Microsoft. So they should know what's under the wraps, no ?
I dont't get this NDA stuff.
Developers should sign it, but as a very important developer, so does Microsoft. So they should know what's under the wraps, no ?
Sure, but they're only allowed to use the information for their Mac software, not for the Windows team.
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
But like so many others have mentioned, that was only what Apple wanted MS to know. I feel that Steve is much like me, as in when he creates a massive project such as Mac OS X -- that he has plans for each and every release, and it seems to me that Leopard is getting closer to the top. And that GUI update (Illuminus, if I remember correctly) will be amazing -- if the rumors hold true. Imagine a black gloss instead of the white. Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade. :-D
So I am sure Leopard will be worth the upgrade.
It will be smoking.
Sure, but they're only allowed to use the information for their Mac software, not for the Windows team.
In theory, anyway.
Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade.
Friend, it sounds like you want Vista.
I think Leopard will utilize CoreAnimation for a new UI that goes well beyond a new theme involving a handful of graphic and color changes. (But not so beyond as to abandon WIMP.)
Core Animation will be an amazing feature. You guys know what they did with the photos when they first showed off those "10 features"? That animation created with Core? Imagine that as a screen-saver and/or desktop. And there could be other graphical tweaks made with Core -- other possible desktops/screen-savers.
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
But like so many others have mentioned, that was only what Apple wanted MS to know. I feel that Steve is much like me, as in when he creates a massive project such as Mac OS X -- that he has plans for each and every release, and it seems to me that Leopard is getting closer to the top. And that GUI update (Illuminus, if I remember correctly) will be amazing -- if the rumors hold true. Imagine a black gloss instead of the white. Or even better (this part is what I wish would happen), being able to chose what color you OS will be. Instead of a white bar, you can make it yellow/pink/black/blue/whatever. That alone would make me spend the 150 for the upgrade. :-D
So I am sure Leopard will be worth the upgrade.
It will be smoking.
who cares about screensavers and gui? all you are doing is displaying something someone else made. it is not like you are being original or creative by displaying the work of a ui professional on your screen. imho the gui should be there to be minimal and let you get on with it. not to look flashy. I'm not saying I don't like a pretty ui, just saying I couldn't care a less what screensaver will come with leopard/
In theory, anyway.
Yep. It's shocking how blatantly they breach the NDA in that document.
Also, did anyone else notice that at that keynote, most of those features were available with third-party software and/or other OS's (like Time Machine was first introduced with Windows XP -- although TM is an very much wanted improvement).
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
Yep. It's shocking how blatantly they breach the NDA in that document.
Yeah. Some of those remarks made me realize that Apple's paranoia w/r/t Vista copying Leopard's UI is far more justified than I first thought.
It's also fascinating how Allchin et al see Spotlight as ripping *them* off, just because they were foolish enough to publicly announce, far too early in its development, WinFS in '03... which of course never made it into Vista in its original and overambitious form.
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
But the same concept is the same: (and thats also why I said TM has been improved, but then again, so does Vista).
And about the comments of the GUI, I grew up on Windows, where I can change the color of my GUI to pratically any color. I still want that. But i would be find swithcing from the current theme to the new one.
Anyway, Leopard will be worth getting no matter how it looks.
Resolution Independence won't affect video, would it? I mean, if you watch a 640x480 video on a 17-inch 1680x1050 screen and then on a 17-inch 1920x1440 screen, the video will look smaller on the latter, wouldn't it? Assuming both machines are running on Leopard.
From what I have understood till now, text and interface elements of the operating system will look the same on both screens, isn't it so?
resolution independence won't affect video at all. video is at a fixed size when it is output. what resolution independence does is use interface elements that are not a set resolution so that they can be scaled infinitely (or at least a set of icons that are cover enough of a range to be sufficient). video is what it is. it stays the size it is when it's created. blowing it up is simply using that information over a larger space.
By the way, Mac_next, if you're interested in tinting OS X to the color of your choice (or changing it completely), I recommend Jason Harris's $20 labor of love ShapeShifter. (Though god knows what he'll have to do to update the thing to work with Leopard.)
That can screw with the wrong things and since I have all ready corrupted a profile using I refuse to do so. But it was an amazing app.
If you're thinking of System Restore, that's from Windows ME. While Time Machine and System Restore both have the concept of looking at restoring data from the past, System Restore is limited to the OS, not your data, whereas Time Machine focuses on your data instead.
I'm more concerned about notebook users who are already extremely limited on drive space, when it comes to using Time Machine. It sounds like a great feature for desktops, but unless they figure out a way to stuff two drives into a MBP, I don't see how Time Machine will be functional without lugging around an external drive, unless notebook users are willing give up space on their already claustrophobic HD's.
I'm more concerned about notebook users who are already extremely limited on drive space, when it comes to using Time Machine. It sounds like a great feature for desktops, but unless they figure out a way to stuff two drives into a MBP, I don't see how Time Machine will be functional without lugging around an external drive, unless notebook users are willing give up space on their already claustrophobic HD's.
I would certainly hope that TM will allow you to plug in an external drive every so often (I recommend everyday) and it will update the image on the external drive. Otherwise as you say, MacBook users will not be as likely to take advantage of it.
resolution independence won't affect video at all. video is at a fixed size when it is output. what resolution independence does is use interface elements that are not a set resolution so that they can be scaled infinitely (or at least a set of icons that are cover enough of a range to be sufficient). video is what it is. it stays the size it is when it's created. blowing it up is simply using that information over a larger space.
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
No, you're wrong. Developers are asked to make their app not magnify bitmap images, whether still or moving, in any lossy way.
You're completely wrong. Resolution independence scales everything. If there is more detail available, you'll see more detail; if not, you'll get a magnified image.
that's what i said. you'll get the same information over a greater space = lower resolution.
No, you're wrong. Developers are asked to make their app not magnify bitmap images, whether still or moving, in any lossy way.
What that request means, is make bigger bitmaps so they don't have to be scaled up. (It's not lossy even if they are... the same information is there. It's just not as good quality as if they had the bigger images.)
Things will get made larger if the resolution independence kicks in. The only apps that can keep things the same are certain Carbon apps that Apple has decided don't work with resolution independence. Everyone else has to draw things larger if the OS says so. It's the developer's job to provide nice larger artwork, otherwise the computer just forcibly scales it.
Amorya